Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mya Byrne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RyanFreisling (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 30 August 2014 (Mya Byrne). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mya Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not a WP:BAND expert, but it doesn't seem like this article is any more than a puff piece. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles linked to in the article are insufficient to demonstrate notability, and there doesn't appear to be much other coverage around. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the poor editing of the article and sources sections thus far, some of the sources are indeed notable (eg the Illinois Times and the D'Addario endorsement). And, post-announcement, Mya has received some additional notable press in 2014: a SingOut magazine / WFDU-FM radio interview [1]; NJ alternative music Aquarian Weekly's mention of her as one of the 30 most promising acts of 2014 [2] and, perhaps more tangentially in terms of subject but speaking to notability, her poetry was just featured in the Advocate: [3]. This information can be added to the article by anyone as part of a much-needed edit overhaul. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: I have gone ahead and edited the article's references, marking assertions as 'citation required' and moving dead links and unclear sources to 'talk'. A significant number of the article's assertions are marked 'citation required' but a significant number are not. Strikes me that the subject is increasingly notable and the article is thus worth keeping. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]